Woman's Hour today is interviewing someone from the Tavistock about puberty blockers

while for females PBs are detrimental to "passing"

Is this because they reduce height?

ThingyBob - "I'm almost certain that the Tavistock will only treat children with GD although I've heard parents, GenderGP and others disagree with this policy. Their argument is that sometimes a child is forced to be dishonest in order to satisfy the diagnostic criteria of the Tavi gatekeepers."

This is an issue raised by one of the GIDS whistleblowers - sorry, but I can't find the reference!

One of the clinicians was concerned about whether GIDS was doing what is was paid to do and queried, "Are we providing a Trans Service or a Gender Identity Service?"

By "gender identity", meaning "gender dysphoria".

It is important to distinguish between the two concepts. I am not at all sure I am describing this very well but they are different things:

"Trans" - the "being born in the wrong body" concept at the heart of Transgender Ideology, which depends on the existence of a psychological state referred to as "inner gender identity".

Gender Dysphoria - what some transsexuals feel would be better described as "Sex Dysphoria", ie. extreme discomfort with one's secondary sexual characteristics, which may be more akin to body dysmorphia. However, in Transgender Ideology this term is used to describe discomfort due to the mismatch between one's inner "gender identity" and a) one's sexed body and/or b) how one is perceived by others in terms of biological sex.

There is a clear argument for the NHS providing a "sex dysphoria" service that should involve psychological help and may involve physical treatments when appropriate to relieve distress.

However, I find it very questionable that the NHS should be piloting adult "Trans Services", the service specifications for which read much more like "Social Support and Advocacy Hubs" than health service provision.

For a GIDS clinician to query whether GIDS was acting within its remit in providing a "Trans Service" suggests that GIDS is indeed treating children who do NOT have gender dysphoria. That is, children who are not distressed but who, for whatever reason, simply want to be provided with the means to change their bodies.

The desired outcome is that others will perceive them as the opposite sex because "distress" is not a necessary factor here.

The current orthodoxy is that they desire this outcome because they have an inner "gender identity" which does not match their biological sex.

Other explanations proposed include internalised homophobia, ie. in the case of children who feel that they are same-sex attracted. I am not going to list all possible explanations, there are too many.

It is very disturbing that for decades clinicians working with adults (mostly male) have reported people presenting with "template" descriptions of "symptoms", seemingly learned by rote in order to match diagnostic check-lists. Also an awareness of coaching by others in "the community" in order to get a diagnosis that will result in the desired treatment to present as the opposite sex, ie. cross-sex hormones and surgery. "Distress" was alway a necessary condition of receiving treatment.

That was going on pre-internet and it is staggeringly easy for children (or their parents) to find and use this advice.

What is shocking about GIDS is the possibility that children and parents might not need to describe evidence of distress, ie. "gender dysphoria", in order to receive physical treatments. If true, this is a bizarre use of NHS resources, ie. provision of experimental, risky, cosmetic procedures, possibly leading to sterility, on self-diagnosis by a child of a hypothetical, unverifiable, benign psychological state.

That would fit very much with an "affirmative model" so perhaps that is, in effect, what GIDS is following?

There is something very questionable about applying concepts developed by sexologists working with adult males to children, even more so when most are female.

The most recent "The Mess We're In" video by @Glinner , @ArtyMorty and Helen Staniland with the lovely James Dreyfus includes a short section that is relevant to the motivations of adult male transsexuals who are same-sex attracted, ie. the original population who were provided with cross-sex hormones and surgeries.

As Arty says, this is something that nobody is supposed to talk about. For several reasons:

• it undermines the idea that conflict between an inner "gender identity" and one's biological sex is always the reason why someone would want to permanently alter one's body to an approximation of the opposite sex

• it puts a spotlight on the role of adult sexuality, adult sexual desire and the wish to enhance physical attractiveness

• it might explain why some men are so fanatical in their advocacy for "trans rights", why their focus is on TW rather than TM and on the argument that puberty blockers enhance "passing", which is only relevant to males, while for females PBs are detrimental to "passing". Essentially, female children are collateral damage as far as PB are concerned.

Really thoughtful and clear interview, completely refuting the 'wrong body' narrative and that children can be trans.

Good. It seems pretty clear language. Although
It's also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children's bones.

Isn't it?

As an aside, the NHS have updated their website re treatment for GD to mention the impact of the Bell case:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

The Tavistock statement is very telling. There’s no reason to mention that other trusts or services actually prescribe the blockers, or other physical interventions, unless you don’t want the blame. Is it ultimately going to come down to well, we’re not doctors so can’t prescribe so it’s not our fault. I wouldn’t be surprised if the endocrinologist’s trust/trusts start to fling subtle accusations back to the Tavistock very soon...

Doctor Bell was excellent. Very clear, articulate and precise.

So do we think they're saying they give physical treatment (including puberty blockers) to 50% of the children referred to them? And the other 50% presumably then just receive consultations and psychological therapy?

That seems like a high proportion, but not as bad as it apparently is in the US, according to Shrier's Planned Parenthood piece.

And I guess the trans activists think that that 50% isn't high enough, as they're trying to prevent therapy under the guise of banning "conversion therapy".

They seem to be saying that actually they give medication to lots of children who aren't dysphoric, but are just trans. What are the diagnostic criteria for that?

Being born in the wrong body?

It sounds as though they are going back to the old tropes of "he always loved Disney Princesses" - but that can't be true can it????

didn't hear it so am just going off the transcript here of the statement

My transcript may well be wrong. It'd be great if someone else could have a listen too. I can't quite believe they are actually saying they give medical treatment to children who identify as trans but don't have dysphoria, and I'd quite like to be wrong!

Perhaps we should contact our MPs to request greater funding for CAMHS - Dr Bell stayed this was the way to treat gender dysphasia initially.

gender dysphoria and being transgender are quite clearly different things. We have often said that gender dysphoria is in fact a poor predictor for who goes on to transition. Gender dysphoria may resolve in a number of ways. This is what the exploration that the service does with young people is concerned with, respecting young people's dysphoric feelings or your self identification does not mean that assumptions are made about how this may evolve over time or what support or treatment may be appropriate.

They say children without gender dysphoria still go onto transition. So what does transition mean in that context?

They then speculate about what treatment might be appropriate for a child based self ID? What the fuck? What treatment would you give a child whose self ID's without any dysphoria?

I'm confused. If the children don't have gender Dysphoria, are they still treating them?

Itsallgoingtibefine I didn't hear it so am just going off the transcript here of the statement, but I don't see where it says some children without gd will be referred for the physical intervention? They are saying gd resolves in a number of ways - ie it can resolve without the medical route.

And yes, those who are prescribed are actually referred to other trusts to do it, and it is a bit 'not me gov' to make a thing of this.

But some of those fifty referred for puberty blockers and further medical treatment do not have a medical condition?

OP

"Here's what they actually said:

"[The Tavistock] have always been confident that fewer than half of children [the Tavistock] see go on to have physical treatment."

"Physical treatment" is a euphemism used to make unclear what's going on."

...

"Ask yourself this question, if nearly all kids given puberty blockers end up on cross-sex hormones, and fewer than half of all kids given puberty blockers end up having "physical treatment"

I think they mean for example, 100 kids a referred to Gids. Fewer than 50 are prescribed some kind of physical intervention which in most cases is initially puberty blockers. The remaining children (more than 50) get no medical intervention at all, only psychological or other support.

Can we play this on mumsnet radio for Nigel?

My plans for Nigel would include cutting off his WiFi and sending him some second wave feminist texts.

But are we meant to believe that those without GD are more-or-less equally likely to transition, and that this is fine?

That's how I interpreted it, but I may well have misheard or misunderstood. Perhaps the Tavi meant they only deal with gender dysphoric children and not trans children without dysphoria? That does seem more likely.

"Gender dysphoria is a poor predictor for who goes on to transition"??

I mean, I get that not all with GD go on to transition. But are we meant to believe that those without GD are more-or-less equally likely to transition, and that this is fine?

This is where there's a huge disconnect between the popular "poor things, suffering from having been born in the wrong body" narrative, and the ideas that are now coming out of various ivory towers (who are themselves riding on the coattails of the popular narrative).

The bit about transgender Vs gender dysphoria was interesting. The Tavistock said

gender dysphoria and being transgender are quite clearly different things. We have often said that gender dysphoria is in fact a poor predictor for who goes on to transition. Gender dysphoria may resolve in a number of ways. This is what the exploration that the service does with young people is concerned with, respecting young people's dysphoric feelings or your self identification does not mean that assumptions are made about how this may evolve over time or what support or treatment may be appropriate.

My understanding was that puberty blockers were a medical treatment for the diagnosable condition of gender dysphoria. They seem to be saying that actually they give medication to lots of children who aren't dysphoric, but are just trans. What are the diagnostic criteria for that?